|Stupid quote provides bulletin board material...||dr hoo|
Oct 17, 2003 10:50 AM
|... for the other side.
Washington - A three-star general active in the search for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein has told religious audiences that the war on terrorism is a battle between a "Christian army" and Satan, and that Muslims worship an "idol" and not a "real God."
GAH! WTF are morons like this thinking SAYING this kind of thing. I can understand (but not agree) with why they might think this, but I would hope a 3 star general officer would realize the effects of this kind of language in our modern telecommunication world.
Yay for holy war!
|re: Stupid quote provides bulletin board material...||BikeViking|
Oct 17, 2003 11:06 AM
|Everyone tends to forget that the Muslim, Jewish and Christian God are one in the same. The GO in question must not know this or chose to ignore it. I think the evangelical would gasp at the thought that Allah and God are one in the same.
The Qu'ran even references the "people of the Book" (Old Testament)in a positive light.
As with some of the seamier things Christianity has done in the name of God, the Muslims need to clean up their own house, or the anti-Muslim backlash will get much worse.
|re: Stupid quote provides bulletin board material...||Live Steam|
Oct 17, 2003 11:26 AM
|I am not a very religious person, but there is an underlying belief from many that "evil" is here to conquer good. Is that in the form of the devil or Satin, I don't know, though I in some ways have a similar feeling. I don't know why, but I do. However this guy is in a position where he effects our relationships with other countries. He should know that his words are followed closely and act accordingly, no matter what he believes. It may very well be a religious war, but it would be impossible to fight it that way.
We Christians didn't do very nice things in Bosnia, no matter what the history was there.
|ya, this free speech stuff really sucks nm||DougSloan|
Oct 17, 2003 11:23 AM
|Shocked all of us around here too..... nm||sn69|
Oct 17, 2003 11:27 AM
|Scott - related question about free speech and military||DougSloan|
Oct 17, 2003 12:22 PM
|In the military, other than classified info, what restrictions on free speech are there? Do you automatically waive some rights? Can you be disciplined for saying some things that in civilian life would be absolutely protected? These arguably stupid statements highlight the issue. Thanks.
|Basically, yup. Lacking any qualified legal edu-ma-cation,||sn69|
Oct 17, 2003 4:56 PM
|I've always been told by the JAGs ("I'm not a real lawyer, but I play one in the military") that one's oath of office is effectively a waiver of one's Constitutional Rights. Our rights, in stead, are guaranteed under the Uniform Code Of Military Justice and the service branche's regulatory code.
That said, most things remain unchanged--freedom of religion, etc. Still, others are curtailed, controlled or prohibited. For example, a military member can own firearms but cannot bring them on base even if that member lives on base (exclusions granted for the use of military firing ranges). Adultery...illegal and punishable with possible imprisonment...I'm not kidding. Etc,....
Likewise, freedom of speech is limited. You cannot discuss classified material nor can you legally utter prejudiced/bigotted remarks. By far, the best example of speech limitations have to do with the Commander-in-Chief, whereby an active military member is prohibited from saying anything disrespectful in public about the Prez. That's been challenged more and more frequently during the past two administrations, but the prohibition remains.
As for what the General said, I'd love to comment, but suffice it to say we were largely shocked at my command.
Ultimately, Doug, the bottom line is that while we are still a microcosm of main-stream society, we can nonetheless legislate behavior like mainstream society cannot. Gone are the days when a misbehaving member could literally have his/her a@@ kicked, but we still have the legal methods to control things that society cannot. We still have our problems, but I'd say that in some areas we're father along than US culture; in others notsomuch.
|Free speech? How about bad judgment||filtersweep|
Oct 18, 2003 7:08 AM
|I think it is less a free speech issue and more one of showing bad judgment.
I've dealt with all sorts of employment issues where an employee shows a lack of boundaries in a "free speech" issue that has long-lasting problematic implications- people do have the right to say stupid things ;)
Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if something like this is just the tip of the iceberg... but what the heck, we are being run by fundamentalist religious zealots- Ashcroft himself requires his staff to attend prayer groups... Bush has demonized the enemy with his "axil of evil" statements. There should be no surprise here.
|Commander in Chief promoted to Saviour, speaks to God||128|
Oct 20, 2003 9:07 AM
|"God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me, I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."
(just coat-tailing your sentiments. thought this quote was relevant)
|Personally, I'm 100 times more shocked at the Malaysian||No_sprint|
Oct 17, 2003 11:49 AM
|PM's comments. Should things continue on and he or his descendents get what they want, they'll have started yet another in a long line of religious wars. This one has the smell of an unprecedented scale though, IMHO.|
|As always, it's all my fault. But where's my cut of the||sn69|
Oct 17, 2003 4:57 PM
|insideous Jewish conspiracy, dammit?!?!?!|
|Not as simple as it sounds, seems to me||Cory|
Oct 17, 2003 5:02 PM
|I'm troubled by the quote (but not surprised; the world and the Bush administration are full of people who believe the same thing), but more troubled by the reaction. The guy has a right to believe any damnfool thing he wants, and to say it within broad, long-defined limits.
What some free-speech advocates ignore, though, is that just because he's ALLOWED to say it, and I support his RIGHT to say it, doesn't mean I have to leave him alone after he does. Just as I'd work against a public official I disagreed with, or not patronize a business that took a stand I didn't like, I'm free to criticize and oppose him for his views. He can do the same to me. Free speech isn't necessarily RISK-free speech.
|Kinda' like what us "neocons" did ...||Live Steam|
Oct 17, 2003 7:27 PM
|the to Hollywood "Cons" (ref. Dixie Chics, et al) prior and subsequent to the war in Iraq. They could say whey they wanted, but we didn't have to patronize them. However us "neocons" were lambasted by you liberals for doing such. Quite .... nah! You get the drift :O)|
|That is IF ...||sacheson|
Oct 20, 2003 9:44 AM
|every "liberal" supported the actions from the Hollywood buffoons - which they didn't.
Which do you think is more a threat to national security: an entertainer making a comment denouncing the actions of our government, or a military leader making these comments?
We can be assured one thing, though ... mindless neocons will evidently support their own, regardless of the stupidity of the words or consequences for saying them.
|Addtional quote.||dr hoo|
Oct 18, 2003 9:30 AM
|This guy included a statement that President Bush was not elected by the people, but appointed by GOD.
This is not a free speech issue. It is a STUPID speech issue by someone who should know the effects of the words on the war on terror.